1/Sometimes I hear: "You have brilliantly documented many of the long-running influence networks on the far right. But surely the same thing must be happening on the left. Shouldn't someone document that, too?
First, these are not two opposing camps of equal import, value, and ethics.
The radical far right is an extremist, minority (sub 20%), anti-institutional, anti-democratic movement, that seeks to impose hierarchy, and often white supremacy.
2/The majority opposition to this movement is pro-institution and pro-democracy. That is not some "vast left-wing conspiracy," but merely the rules-based international and institutional order over which World War II was fought, and won. Most people wish to preserve this order. Is it perfect? No. But it has mechanisms for self-improvement.
Are there networks of long-running influence, like CFR, WEF, the Trilateral Commission, or the UN? Yes.
3/Do those also need checks and balances? Yes. But when it comes to network of a small powerful minority trying to destroy institutions and impose hierarchical, the radical right is unchallenged. There is no symmetric "both sides" argument to be made here.
We should be making left and right extremism both be fringe again, and occupy the outer 2-5% of the bell curve.
But acting like global politics is a contest of equal ideas "on both sides" is just a fallacy. There are people who want to...
4/Preserve the institutions we have, and protect people's rights, and there are people who want to destroy those institutions. I oppose the people who want to destroy institutions, and see those as a legitimate threat to our continued existence.
To me, that's much more important than trying to cast any of this as some kind of "team sports" contest.
Institutions must be protected, so they can serve as a check against excesses by people of all stripes.
For the left anarchists: your minority position is yours to hold, but most people would rather preserve and improve institutions than burn them down.
@davetroy As long as the institutions live up to their promises to the people, we won't have to worry about anarchists trying to burn them down.
@DecaturNature @davetroy
Yes you do.
But it will be by proxy.
They don’t attack the Right they attack the actual left and in doing so give us presidents like trump by a margin of 84k votes over 3 states. They attack MVP Harris & President Biden non stop to dampen voter turnout
@Pineywoozle @davetroy The Justice Democrats are not anarchists.
@DecaturNature @davetroy Wanting to destroy the Dems and being OK if that gets accomplished by allowing the rethugs to burn the place down so we will unite with them and build their unicorn fart quasi socialist paradise kind of says different.
They’ve stated as much and championed those who still do like Susan Sarandon.
Entryism is often achieved by anarchistic means and they are absolutely entryists. They aren’t remotely the threat the farR are but they are a threat.
@Pineywoozle They aren't even running vote-splitting (independent/third-party) candidates. They are about as non-disruptive as any reform movement can be. If this is the extremism that you're worried about, then you don't have anything to worry about.
@DecaturNature Several high visibility endorsed surrogates consistently from 2016 on promoted wasting votes on just that, ie voting Green or writing in Bernie in the General.
Also Bernie etc never address how much support they get from Putin
It was only last month that Bernie removed Tulsi from the fellows of the Sanders institute.
Likewise the tea party was just old people pretending to be a grassroots movement & just happened to have busses & rallies paid for by the Koch Bros...